The Varieties of Psychedelic Expertise in 1960s Canada: The Psychiatrists behind the Addiction Research Foundation’s Study of LSD Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1962, Ontario's Addiction Research Foundation launched the first double-blind randomized controlled trial of LSD therapy as a treatment for alcoholism. The study, which found that LSD was not effective, was heavily criticized by other therapists working with the drug. These critics argued that the Toronto researchers who carried out the study were biased against LSD and used an anti-therapeutic method that was destined to produce negative results. Instead of creating a comfortable and supportive environment, they stressed, the Toronto group restrained patients to a bed in a hospital ward, used an unusually large dose of LSD, and hardly provided any careful therapeutic support. Some even compared this method to a "form of torture." Historians have paid little attention to the study, mentioning it only as an example of flawed or naïve LSD therapy that contrasted with the more advanced "psychedelic" approach developed in Saskatchewan. In this paper, I take a closer look at the Toronto psychiatrists who carried out the study and created the unique method that was employed. I show that they were actually quite excited about LSD and were more sophisticated in their approach to its use than has been appreciated by historians and critics. In many ways, they had their own brand of LSD expertise that differed from that of the Saskatchewan group. Some of the problems with the ARF study, then, did not stem from negative bias or a lack of competency, but instead resulted from the awkward relationship between LSD therapy and controlled trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".